In his criticisms of the Pope, Richard Dawkins is sounding suspiciously
familiar, says Jenny McCartney.

That hoary veteran of anti-papal protest, Ian Paisley, turned up in Edinburgh last week to condemn the arrival of Pope Benedict XVI. One had the sense, however, that his appearance was mainly undertaken for old times’ sake, like a vaudeville performer treading the boards for one last hurrah.

Paisley, now Lord Bannside, chose his words with uncharacteristic moderation. He spoke of “some matters of great trouble for the Catholic Church”, with specific reference to the child abuse scandal, and declared his determination to focus on “moral and spiritual matters”.

It can be hard to recall, now that the elderly Paisley has finally had his abrasive Ulster surfaces sanded and polished by the British establishment, just what a phenomenal social pariah he once was. In 1988, when Pope John Paul II – who was uncommonly warmly regarded, even among non-believers – delivered an address to the European Parliament, Paisley yelled “I denounce you as the Antichrist” and was bundled from the chamber by an angry gaggle of fellow MEPs. His thunderous fulminations made the English, who generally prefer their religion in palatable and private doses, deeply uneasy.

That is why it comes as quite a surprise, more than 20 years on, to see that open Pope-baiting has become such a popular sport, with everyone from Stephen Fry to Geoffrey Robinson QC and Philip Pullman joining in. The public figure who has inherited Paisley’s mantle of Chief Critic to the Pope is Richard Dawkins, in many ways the consummate Antipaisley. Where Paisley is a Presbyterian fundamentalist, Dawkins describes himself as a “fairly militant atheist”. Paisley received his honorary doctorate from Bob Jones University, while Dawkins is a scientist, author and former Oxford professor. While the sight and sound of Paisley roaring his imprecations in oddly shaped vowels made the middle classes of England recoil, they are at ease in the presence of Dawkins.

And yet something about the style in which Dawkins has been pursuing his campaign reminds me of Paisley in the vehemence of his youth. Of late, Dawkins has moved away from the defence of science, and towards attacks upon religious belief. The reckless showman in him is outstripping the ardent rationalist, just as in Paisley it regularly held the theologian hostage.

Related Articles

Earlier this year, Dawkins described Pope Benedict – among other, worse accusations – as “a leering old villain in a frock… a man who believes he is infallible and acts the part”. He added that he was the most appropriate head for an “evil, corrupt organisation”. There was later some talk, mercifully abandoned, of performing a citizen’s arrest during the visit to Britain.

Yet Pope Benedict, whatever one’s view of him, has conducted himself on tour with a measure of grace not visible in his opponents. He has publicly owned the shame of the child-abuse scandal, acknowledged the hurt, and said that, in future, abusers should never be permitted to come into contact with young people again.

You might well argue that this does not go far enough to expunge the stain which that disgraceful cover-up left upon the reputation of the Catholic hierarchy, but it is crude to pretend that the corruption extends to the entirety of the Church, and the numerous people within it who act from wholly altruistic motives.

I am neither a creationist nor a Catholic, but the Pope-bashing jars. As a Protestant in Northern Ireland, I abhorred the Paisleyite stunts, not least because they caused distress to many decent people, and fanned a dangerous climate of hysteria. The same arguments apply today. Dawkins’s views are both defensible and debatable, but the means in which they are delivered does his acute intelligence little credit, and increasingly suggests “a man who believes he is infallible and acts the part”.

A couple of years ago, Dawkins lent his name to the oddly constructed atheist slogan: “There is probably no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life.” There is enough doubt in that “probably” to warrant at least dropping the hectoring tone. Perhaps Mr Dawkins should take a lesson from Mr Paisley, learnt so very late in life, and turn down the volume.